Tamil Nadu: Lower court’s death penalty verdict binned

4-year-old’s murder case handed over to CBI; HC bench raps trial court judge.
Madras High Court (File Photo | PTI)
Madras High Court (File Photo | PTI)

CHENNAI: A division bench of the Madras High Court has set aside an order of the trial court awarding death sentence to an accused in a murder case. Giving the benefit of doubt in the absence of direct evidence, Justices S Vimala and S Ramathilagam were unanimous in setting aside the capital punishment awarded by the trial court to the accused and ordering re-investigation by CBI. However, they differed in commenting on the trial court judge, terming his judgment as ‘poor’ and suggesting to enter the adverse remarks in his service register. The second judge Ramathilagam was of the opinion that the remarks made by Justice Vimala against the trial judge be expunged.

According to prosecution, Paramasivam and P Manikandan were close friends. While so, the latter borrowed `5 lakh from the former. Manikandan could not repay the loan due to loss in business. Paramasivam pestered him resulting in the strained relations between them. Paramasivam’s four-year-old daughter Pachaiyammal went missing on June 13, 2013. However, the body of the child was recovered from a well four days later. Though there was no eye-witness to the crime, Tiruvannamalai police arrested Manikandan, who had allegedly developed a sense of revenge against Paramasivam, based on circumstantial evidence. Besides, the ID card of the accused was recovered from the farm in which the well was situated. 

The Mahila Court at Tiruvannamalai on January 31 this year awarded death sentence to Manikandan. Hence, the referred trial from prosecution to confirm the sentence and the criminal appeal from Manikandan challenging the capital punishment.The bench observed that the judiciary has more accountability than the other two branches, i.e., legislature and executive, because judiciary alone has the power of judicial review over the action of other two. When more power is exercised, more caution is essential. Judging can be done only on the basis of legal evidence. If at all the trial court has felt the agony of a four-year-old having been done to death, when it finds that there is no evidence, either a re-trial or de-novo trial or further probe ought to have been ordered. Leaving those options, it is not fair and proper for the trial court to have awarded death sentence in respect of an offence for which there is no evidence.

Only in rarest of rare cases, even after establishment of case by legal evidence, awarding of death penalty is permissible. This is a case where there is no evidence at all. Still, death penalty was handed down in a casual manner, probably out of an over enthusiasm and zeal to stray into the irrelevant considerations other than those sanctioned by the highest court, the judges said and ordered acquittal of the accused.Justice Vimala went a step ahead and held that the capital punishment would evoke an awe and send shock waves only when it is based on truth and evidence and the same would lose its sanctity and severity when it is perverse and peddled frequently by trial courts for fear of indictment from outside sources. She called upon the trial court judge to explain as to why her adverse remarks should not be entered in the service records, recording that the quality of judgment is poor.

However, Justice Ramathilagam was of the view that commenting on the judgment, giving warning to the lower court judge and registering adverse remarks in the service register can be done separately by giving a chance to the judge and to explain his stand regarding the judgment given by him. However, both judges were unanimous in ordering re-investigation by CBI. The CBI should probe the matter and submit its report to committal court in three months, the judges said.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com